OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING
Monday, August 13, 2012
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Regular Hearing on Monday, August 13, 2012, at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were Jane Cable, Chairman, Jane Marsh, Secretary (arrived 8:05 p.m.), John Johnson, Vice Chairman (arrived at 7:44 p.m.), Tom Risom (Regular Member), Pat Looney (Regular Member), Ted Kiritsis (Alternate) and Harland Frazier (Alternate).
Also present: Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Chairman Cable called the Public Hearings to order at 7:32 p.m. Mr. Looney read the Legal Notice for all the Public Hearings, as published in the New London Day.
1. Special Permit Application to install a 10’ x 42” diameter buried propane tank and concrete pad (Section 4.3) and reaffirmation of April 9, 2012 approval of a Special Permit Application to permit an air-conditioning unit (compressor) on the roof of existing structure on property located at 81 Connecticut Road, Michael and Helen Francis, applicants.
Seated were: J. Cable, T. Risom, P. Looney, T. Kiritsis and H. Frazier
Attorney Cronin was present to represent the applicants. Mr. Looney read the exhibit list for the record. Attorney Cronin explained that the application is two-part. He noted that the applicant did not send out notices for the original Special Permit Application to locate the a/c compressor on the roof, as required by the Regulations. Chairman Cable asked if there was anyone present in the audience who wanted to comment on the location of the compressor.
Shirley and Gwen Basset, 79 Connecticut Road, stated that she would like her letter read into the record. She questioned why the compressor could not be located where it would meet the Zoning Ordinances.
Attorney Cronin explained that Ms. Brown has determined that locating the compressor on the roof is an upward expansion of a nonconforming structure. He noted that the Zoning Regulations do not allow expansion of a nonconforming structure but 9.1.3.2 allows expansion of this type providing certain provisions are met, which they are. Ms. Brown stated that the a/c compressor location was not thought about prior to the house design and after a lengthy ZBA hearing they began construction and part way through this issue arose. She noted that the applicants found a location that met the Zoning Regulations on the south side of the house but because of the flood zone it would have to have been elevated and it was felt that that location would be more disturbing to neighbors than the roof location.
Attorney Cronin stated they could locate the a/c compressor on the deck or other locations where it would be more disturbing to neighbors. He noted that sounds goes up and out so the roof location will be the quietest. Mr. Francis, applicant, stated that he has tried to be considerate of his neighbors through the process, he indicated that he has purchased an expensive unit as it is much quieter (more insulated) than other less expensive ones. He noted that the roof top location is the most expensive place to install the unit also.
Ms. Basset stated that she is confused about the location chosen because the site plan shows many conforming areas where the compressor could be located. Ms. Cable noted that because of the flood zone requirements the compressor would have to be elevated to elevation 11. Ms. Basset stated that the proposal before the Commission is to raise the unit 20 feet in the air. She indicated that she is immediately adjacent and the proposed location will impact her greatly. Mr. Johnson stated that the fact that the compressor is located on the rooftop will lessen any noise impact. Ms. Basset stated that sitting on her deck she can hear the compressor and it has destroyed her enjoyment of the wetlands. Mr. Francis stated that it would be louder on the ground. Attorney Cronin stated that the
neighbor on the other side of Ms. Basset has two air conditioners in their windows that are even closer to her property than this property. She stated that she has never heard those units.
Jill Cartagena, Point One Architects, stated that they could put a small fence to shield the compressor and they could add a baffle type insulation to muffle the noise. She indicated that the fence would also direct the noise upward. Ms. Cartagena stated that the fence would only have to be 30” high.
Ms. Basset read her letter to the Commission for the record. She indicated that she does not believe that the solution proposed this evening would be sufficient. Mr. Francis stated that the conforming location, with the compressor elevated, would have a worse visual impact. He noted that it will be louder also.
Mr. Francis stated that the a/c compressor, per the manufacturer, measures 79 decibels. Mr. Kiritsis suggested covering the top of the unit to reduce the noise impact.
Attorney Cronin produced a photograph of what a unit would look like elevated to meet the flood zone requirement; he noted it is located a few houses down at 85 Connecticut Road. (photograph marked Exhibit K).
Ms. Basset stated that a compressor located on the ground could be screened by tall shrubs.
Attorney Cronin stated that the other portion of the application involves the tanks which are currently located on the property. He showed a photograph of the tanks which was marked Exhibit L. Attorney Cronin noted that these tanks are in a conforming location. He noted that the applicant feels they are unsightly and the proposal is to locate an underground tank off the deck.
Jill Cartagena showed an as-built survey of the house. She noted that the yellow outline is the house, the pink lines are the property setbacks and the blue line is the wetlands buffer line. She pointed out the existing tanks on the site plan. Ms. Cartagena stated that the proposal is to install one large underground propane tank. She noted that they would like to install the tank under the existing deck and by doing so, 7 square feet of the tank would encroach into the 50’ wetlands buffer. Ms. Cartagena stated that the site plan the Commission is looking at shows a larger tank with 22 square feet in the buffer. She presented a revised site plan, revised 8/13/12 (marked Exhibit G). Mr. Looney noted that the revised site plan is marked as Exhibit G in the new application. He read the exhibit list for the record. Ms. Brown asked that staff be allowed to correct the exhibits/exhibit lists if they do not correspond to the proper file.
Ms. Marsh arrived at this time.
Ms. Cartagena submitted the tank specifications and the installation method (Exhibit I). She submitted photographs (Exhibit J) of the deck showing that the clearance is approximately 4 feet.
Attorney Cronin stated that this application comes under Section 4.3 of the Zoning Regulations. He explained that the house is located next to the tidal creek and he noted that there are no coastal resources on the site so there is no CAM application. Attorney Cronin stated that dwellings located 200 feet outside coastal resources are excluded from CAM. He stated that the Regulation refers back to the CAM principles and evaluates some of them as part of the application. Attorney Cronin stated that in the CT River Gateway Zone, the 50’ buffer can be encroached upon if it is not intended for human occupancy, which this is not. He noted there would be no sight line issues because the tank is underground. Attorney Cronin stated that the underground tank must be located 10 feet off
the building for safety. He reiterated that the applicants are willing to screen the compressor as a condition of that application approval.
Mr. Looney stated that he would like confirmation from the Fire Marshal regarding the tank location. Ms. Cartagena stated that she reviewed the plan with the Fire Marshal but he would not give a written approval until he is asked to by the Commission.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application.
Attorney Cronin stated that the applicant has done everything right and he believes they are within their rights to have air conditioning. He noted that any conforming location will have more adverse effects on the neighboring property owners. Attorney Cronin stated that they are willing to do the additional buffering/screening.
Mr. Johnson stated that it would go a long way if the applicant could provide a plan showing the fencing and insulation.
(NOTE: The Public Hearing for this item was closed in the same motion as Item #2, see below).
2. Special Permit Application to construct an addition to the rear of the existing structure to house telephone equipment, relocation of existing equipment courtyard from west side of facility to north side behind addition and the reconfiguration of existing parking area located at the rear of the existing facility (under Section 5.4.3 Special Permit Uses – Public Utility Facility) on property located at 5 Beckwith Lane, SNET/SBC/AT&T Communications, Inc., applicant.
Chairman Cable noted that all the Regular Members would now be seated.
Greg Morando was present to represent the applicant. Ms. Marsh read the exhibit list for the record. Alan Lagock, architect on the project, explained the site plan. He noted that the building will increase from one to two-story. Mr. Lagock stated that the proposal meets all the other Zoning Regulations, with the exception of total lot coverage. He explained that 30 percent is allowed and there is currently 36.6 percent lot coverage. Mr. Lagock stated that the total lot coverage is being reduced by this proposal and will be closer to conformity.
Ms. Marsh questioned whether there are any plantings proposed to make the structure more home-like. Mr. Lagock stated that there are existing shrubs that they plan to keep but no new ones proposed. Ms. Marsh questioned whether they would be installing anything that would make noise. Mr. Lagock stated that they are not.
Mr. Morando distributed a sound survey which shows 40 dba at the property line where 45 dba is allowed. He noted that they will be installing sound insulation fencing around the units. Mr. Morando stated that flood lights will be mounted inside the fence for when the equipment needs to be worked on. He noted that they would not be on routinely. Mr. Morando explained that they would be willing to meet all of Mr. Metcalf’s requirements and he presented a signed letter indicating such.
Chairman Cable stated that the only issue is storm water drainage. He indicated that that would be evaluated on site. Chairman Cable questioned whether the parking area is visible to neighbors. Mr. Logack pointed out an existing hedge but noted there was no buffer on the west side.
Ms. Marsh questioned what the applicant would plant if they were to add plantings. Mr. Morando stated that if they were asked to add plantings they would most likely use the same type that they already have. He also indicated he would be willing to add a hedge on the west side.
John Feckler, 7 Beckwith Lane, stated that his family has owned the house for sixty years. He noted that it is a residential area. Mr. Feckler stated that inside the building there are many hazards and more are being added. He indicated that he has been dealing with AT&T and their trees that hang over onto his land. He stated that the generator runs twice a week and it is very loud. Mr. Feckler stated that he looks across his yard and sees a 10 foot wall and now he will see a two-story building. He noted that SNET was a good neighbor but since they became AT&T they are not a good neighbor. He reiterated that this is a commercial building in a residential area. Mr. Feckler presented photographs of some of the overgrowth onto his property. He noted that the
building is not well kept either as there is peeling paint and the chain link fence is falling apart.
Kathleen Mondyke stated that she lives on the other side of the proposed building. She asked if they would be adding more windows. Mr. Morando replied that they would not be adding windows. Ms. Mondyke stated that very often the workers leave the interior lights on and they shine right into her main room. Mr. Morando stated that they could change the lighting to motion-sensored so that this would not happen in the future.
Mr. Morando stated that the outside lights near the entry-way will be on from dusk until daybreak for safety.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Cable asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Tom Risom and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearings on the application for 81 Connecticut Road, Michael and Helen Francis, applicants and for 5 Beckwith Lane, SNET/SBC/AT&T Communications, Inc., applicant.
3. Special Permit Application and Municipal Coastal Site Plan Review Application to demolish and replace existing single family home on property located at 76 Center Beach Avenue, Rocco & Kerri Todaro, applicants.
Ms. Marsh read the exhibit list for the record and read the CAM approval.
Ms. Todaro submitted photographs of the existing dwelling and three letters from abutting neighbors in favor of the application. Mr. Todaro stated that there have been many small additions over the years. He noted that they are living there full time now and need to make repairs as the structure is now termite infested. Mr. Todaro stated that he did test holes. He indicated that Ricon Builders will be doing both the demolition and the construction. Ms. Brown noted that the applicant is using the flood map that the Commission will be approving in six or eight months, which is a good thing.
Mr. Todaro stated that he will be hooking up to Connecticut Water. He pointed out the location of the new septic system. Mr. Todaro stated that the existing house is 890 square feet. He explained that the existing house is heated by electric and they will be heating with oil, installing an oil tank in the basement.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Cable asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Jane Marsh and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing on the application for 76 Center Beach Avenue, Rocco & Kerri Todaro, applicants.
4. Special Permit Application and Municipal Coastal Site Plan Review Application to replace 4’ wide fixed wood pile/post and timber walkway with new walkway, replace an existing 172 +/- s.f. pile/pipe restrained float with new float with associated ramp, restraint piles and three new tie-off piles waterward of high tide line. Plus minor alterations to walkway and floating dock on property located at 21 Ferry Road, Edward O’Hanlan, applicant and 23 Ferry Road, Robin Sedgwick, applicant.
Jane Marsh read the exhibit list for the record. Keith Neilson, Docko, was present to represent the applicants. He indicated that he has worked closely with Ms. Brown and both applicants in designing this project. Mr. Neilson submitted his green cards for proof of mailing to abutters. He explained that the two properties were owned by one person in 1922 and gave his daughter a right of way to the water and they shared a dock. He explained that the dock has pre-existed (since 1920) all dock Regulations and all dock structures were grandfathered by the Corps of Engineers in December of 1968. Mr. Neilson stated that the pier needs to be rebuilt and the DEP requires that it conforms to new standards and the DEP interprets the Town’s Harbor Management Plan slightly different then the
Town does. He indicated that one of the standards includes raising the walkway which the Harbor Management Commission was not happy with. Mr. Neilson stated that he was able to find a compromise with a little innovative dock design. He explained that the dock is a foot lower then the structure next door and the walkway will be rebuilt narrower than the existing 4’ width; it will have plastic decking; and the existing floating dock will be reduced from 172 square feet to 100 square feet in accordance with the current guidelines.
Mr. Neilson stated that they have received permits for this plan from both the DEP and the Army Corps of Engineers and have received approval from the Harbor Management Commission. He stated that the existing structure has been maintained for 80 plus years. Mr. Neilson stated that the application meets all Zoning Regulations. He indicated that they need Site Plan Approval and Special Permit approval from the Zoning Commission because the dock is located 25’ from the neighboring property line.
Mr. Neilson explained that the dock will be owned by Mr. O’Hanlan and it will be constructed on the Sedgwick’s property.
The Commission reviewed the location of the walkway on the site plan. He noted that the walkway is proposed in its existing location and will be reduced from 4’ in width to 3.25’ in width. Mr. Neilson stated that the applicant currently has power at the dock and they will be adding water. He noted that the courtesy lights are low profile, 6” above the deck, and will be less than 5 watts.
Mr. Neilson stated that there are no inland wetlands on the site and this was confirmed by Richard Snarski, soil scientist.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Cable asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Jane Marsh and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing on the application for 21 Ferry Road, Edward O’Hanlan, applicant and 23 Ferry Road, Robin Sedgwick, applicant.
Chairman Cable adjourned the Public Hearing at 9:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
